A friend of a friend is interested in putting a 13B
in a
Super
Pacer. A
Super Pacer is a stretched Piper Pacer (longer fuse,
bigger wing).
Has anyone done one in the past?
Paul, would you be willing to do a FWF 3D for him?
If so,
what
info
would you need?
Doc Custer
Retired Software Engineer and sometime Audiologist
Sketch of the firewall hard point dimensions.
Position of the thrust line. Any angular thrust offsets
and length of the cowl from prop flange to firewall.
--
Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
I had considered doing this too.. I think it's a good
fit. I
know of a
couple of Pacer's with STC'd 180hp Lycomings (in an
essentially stock
airframe). They make good performers. With a stretched
wing
and fuse
you end up with a nice utility airplane. Pacer
airframes are
still
pretty cheap too.
Other airframes that are a good deal and a pretty good
match:
Cherokee 140
Stinson 108x
Cessna 175
The Pacer is probably the easiest to accomplish this kind of
thing on
since they are tube and fabric and relatively easily
modified. Plus,
several of them have already moved to Experimental (amateur
built) -
putting on Ford V6's. I don't see that a Stinson would
be any
harder
though. And I think there are several things about
Stinsons that
are nicer.
Matt-
Check with your local FSDO on the rules.
Paul Lamar
It's relatively easy to mod a tube-fabric airplane enough to
qualify for
amateur built.. Putting what are essentially different wings
on it, and
stretching the fuse, plus all of the replumbing/recovering
work, plus
completely changing the type of engine makes it pretty easy to
argue
that you built more than 51% of the plane yourself. It's a
big project
compared to building something like a Lancair Legacy kit, or
even an
RV. Any airplane is just a collection of parts.
Matt-
Hi Matt, This is a very popular MISCONCEPTION. Go to your
local FSDO
and ask to see the checklist, I did. The FAA uses only that
list, and it
is interesting and informative. This item by item " you built
it / you
did not build it " list is also used by DAR's when they are
employed to
do the A/W inspection. Sometimes projects slip thru an
examiner---look
back a few months at Sport Aviation and you will find a SEABEE
with a
Corvette engine in it. The article glows with this
misconception, now
look more recently and you will find an obscure article about
the same
plane and the investigation that has started to determine how
the A/W
certificate of "experimental-amateur built" was ever issued in
the first
place. "Amateur built" is only ONE of several Experimental
sub-catagories and is GOLDEN for all who abide by the actual
"I built
51%" rule. Please DONOT encourage people to take advantage of
this good
rule. Simply moving production parts is not "building" the
part. Yes,
you can reuse a large part like a wing, or an engine, or a
rudder, or
control assembly, but you get NO checklist credit toward the
sacred 51%
so you would have to make up the difference elsewhere. It's
all on the
checklist for anyone to read for the asking. When the dust
settles on
the SEABEE it will probably continue to fly, but the owner
likely will
have to live with the MUCH stricter restrictions provided in
the other
sub-catagories of the Experimental
Class. Dave M
Dave,
I too wondered about that Seabee. Not that I think there's anything
wrong with what he got away with, but I do think he got away with
something there. In that case, there were mods to the parts that they
fabricated - my recollection is that they basically rebuilt (as in
deriveted and mostly reskinned) most of the airframe, but overall, the
parts were still Seabee in dimension and construction.
In the case of a Pacer, if you cut up the fuse to extend it, you can
claim that as work done. I'm not saying you can claim that you built
the whole fuse. If you build a set of wings from a Supercub kit (or
PA14 or whatever), that's a no-brainer. Building a motormount, building
landing gear (you probably have to go longer than stock Pacer gear for
prop clearance), fuel tanks, instrument panel, covering, painting,
plumbing, upholstery, cowling, etc. all counts. Each of these items
contribute to a finished airplane. Your DAR (nor the FSDO) might not
initially agree, but if you demonstrate that you did all of this work,
it counts. You'll want docs.
I'm not sure what you mean about "take advantage of this good rule." In
my opinion, if people don't take advantage of the rule, the ability to
do good projects will absolutely be lost. The people need to continue
to push back against moronic regulation. This is not a case of "Shhhh!
We need to do this quietly or else they'll make it illegal."
I believe there's nothing sacrosanct about scratch building... Or even
original kit-building.
Matt-
Hi Matt, You're missing the point. This is a LIST. It lists "WING
RIB" with two check boxes---one is "builder fabricated" the other is
"builder did not fabricate" The inspector puts a check in one box or
the
other. IT"S THAT SIMPLE......AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE AMOUMT OF
WORK ACTUALLY PERFORMED. If you BUILD a strut your check mark goes in
the "builder fab'd" box , if you BUY a strut (ie from a crashed
production airplane) the checkmark goes in the "builder did not fab"
box. At the end of several pages of this the inspector tallies up the
columns, pulls out the calculator and hopefully says "Congratulations
you BUILT MORE THAN 51%,here's your operating limitations"
Matt, go read the list. There is nothing subversive about it, but people
try to take advantage by doing things like engine swaps to replace a
runout in a production plane then try to get the non certificated
combination recertified as an "Experimental- Amateur Built". Go read the
FAA reg's on the other sub catagories of "Experimental" (ie
"Restricted" or "Exibition" etc) and you will quickly understand why all
the restrictions (and paperwork) send less than honest people to the
"Amateur Built" sub catagory trying to get an A/W certificate.
I picked on the wing rib example for a reason. There are quirks in the
rule and this is one. The FAA says if you can build ONE rib you likely
could build many, so if you document your actual BUILDING of one rib
the
inspector will give you "Builder Fab'd" credit for ALL the ribs even if
your kit came with all but one installed!!!!! Not a bad deal at all in
the final 51% determination.
Remember: it's a PARTS COUNT not a tally of labor or hours. If you're
remotely considering this approach to get a rotary into a plane you
assembled from production parts then follow Paul's advice.....TALK TO
YOUR FSDO FIRST.
BTW it's people working within the system that have provided
enough flexibility in the "moronic regulations" you cite that allow us
to legally build and fly almost anything, almost anywhere in this
country. The rules are liberal and need not be
exploited. Dave M
Actually I think I fully understood you...
Matt-
The Rotary Engine NewsLetter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site.
http://www.rotaryeng.net
Copyright 1998-2006 All world wide rights reserved.